Buddhism

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

http://buddhism.about.com/od/introductiontobuddhism/a/budbeliefs.htm
http://buddhism.about.com/od/thefournobletruths/a/fournobletruths.htm
http://buddhism.about.com/od/whatistheself/a/skandhasnoself.htm
http://buddhism.about.com/od/theeightfoldpath/a/eightfoldpath.htm

One of my mom's friends identified as a "Catholic Buddhist" before he passed away from a severe disease he was diagnosed with.  I was a bit intrigued, but I never got around to doing a little research on it until, well, now.  I haven't gotten through all the material yet, but I've noticed several parallels between Buddhism and Christianity (or at least, New Age-style Christianity that myself and others practice).  But I wanted to read what other frequenters of this board think.

[Sbane]

Aren't there parellels between all religions? What's so different about Budhism and Catholicsm? If anything it is the closest to Hinduism. Anyways, I have a very positive opinion of it. It is the only major religion that even makes a little bit of sense.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Aren't there parellels between all religions? What's so different about Budhism and Catholicsm?

I suppose you could say that.  The differences lie mostly between dogmatic teachings.  Buddhists do not necessarily follow Christ as a figure, but walk in what is virtually the same moral path.  The same could be said for Christians who don't emphasize on dogma, or at the very least put it second to existing wisely, ethically, and lovingly.  We may not all be on the same boat, yet we travel along the same river.

[Sbane]

When you say the "same moral path", don't you think tha could be applied to any religion.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

When you say the "same moral path", don't you think tha could be applied to any religion.

That's basically my point.

[Sbane]

When you say the "same moral path", don't you think tha could be applied to any religion.

That's basically my point.

Oh ok. It just seemed like you were implying the similarity only extended to Budhism.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As a philosophy, Buddhism has a lot to offer, but where I find fault with it (at least as far as I understand it) is in its insistence that the self is an illusion.  I think it is mistaken in interpreting our interdependence as indicative of a lack of autonomy.  So general positive, and while I do intend to mine it for useful bits of philosophy and insight, I do not see myself ever being a Buddhist. If nothing else, I'm too attached to my illusion to discard it. Nor do I find life bitter.  Life is at times tart, but that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.  Birth and death are to embraced, not avoided.

[anvi]

As a scholar who has studied, written and taught a lot about Buddhist philosophy (though I am not myself a Buddhist), it's quite hard for me to give a blanket opinion.  There are so many different kinds of Buddhism practiced in different cultures. 

In general terms, however, my overall reaction to Buddhism is quite positive.  I think there are some philosophical problems in it, as there are in any human attempt to figure out life.  But Buddhism is not grounded in the notion that life is bitter.  In fact, Buddhists believe that it's possible for human beings to find genuine and lasting contentment, peace of mind, within this very life.  There is, however, a catch to this conviction, and that catch is often a difficult one for us to face.  The Buddhists do not believe that lasting contentment can come about through a life dedicated to the proposition that happiness consists in the fulfillment of desires--desires being understood as obsessive psychological attachments.  The reason for that conviction is that, in the long run, any given desire can have only three possible outcomes.  You can want something but be denied the chance to have it.  You can want something, get it and then lose it.  Or you can want something, get it, and then get bored with it after a while, only to get caught up in the next iteration of the desire for and pursuit of something else.  No durable, lasting contentment can result from living life as a pursuer of desires.  We want to acquire things that we can not only hold on to forever, but that will make us happy forever, and therein lies the problem, for we live in a world of pervasive impermanence, and nothing can be held on to forever, not even our own selves or lives.  So, instead of being pursuers of desires, Buddhists believe, we must accept impermanence as inevitable, and learn the difficult, but in the end peaceful, art of contentment, and remain open to experiencing the world and others for what they are, and not just what we wish them to be. 

My generally positive impression of Buddhism certainly does not lie in my ability to follow its path.  I'm far, far too weak for that.  I have been able to quell some of my desires, some others have waned over time and will continue to, but others I still cling to as mightily as I can, wanting to soak up whatever joy, happiness, fulfillment and pleasure can be won from them, fleeting though all these, I have no doubt, are.  But I know I will pay a price for such clinging, because it will be hard, very hard, for me to let go of these delights someday, as I will, like everyone else, have to.  That's something I must struggle with when it comes.  But my inability to follow the Buddhist path does not mean that the Buddhists are wrong.  The Buddhists look impermanence squarely in its face, and still believe that, with cultivation and practice, they can not only conquer the fear of it, but even celebrate it as the very source from which all change can be made possible.  I can't but think quite highly of that.   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No durable, lasting contentment can result from living life as a pursuer of desires. 

Even if that be true, that does not necessarily imply that not pursing desire will lead to a durable, lasting contentment.  Nor do I see that it must be true. Life is as much about the journey as the destination, and just because one picks the destinations one wants to visit does not mean that the journey will be any less enjoyable.

[anvi]

It's not always true, of course, Ernest.  Not even Buddhists think everyone gets there that tries.  But they do think some people can. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's not always true, of course, Ernest.  Not even Buddhists think everyone gets there that tries.  But they do think some people can. 

That I can accept, but I won't accept that there aren't those who can find contentment in a life of endless pursuit of happiness.

[anvi]

Well, I can't accept that there is such a thing as endless pursuit of happiness.  All pursuits end.  Plus, Buddhists do believe in happiness...and they think that, if people don't buy into the Buddhist view of the world, they should, by all means, do something else.  So, we can either match one another, unacceptance for unacceptance, or just each do our own thing--the latter of which is what a Buddhist would recommend. 

[dead0man]

I'm intrigued by it, but I'm much too lazy and apathetic to do anything about it.

[TDAS04]

Mostly positive, even if it has points that I disagree with. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Both believe in incarnation of soul whether it is in utopian society with God or its rebirth.

[Oakvale]

The Michael Stipe liberal hippie Buddhism is okay, not a big fan of "real" Buddhism.

[Beet]

anvi has put his finger on why I am not a Buddhist, I think, as his description matches up with what I have read, and his reasons and mine are similar. With that being said, I cannot help also but to note that I did not know Buddhists thought of the self as an illusion, but it is an interesting proposition.

I believe that there is something to be said for the notion that we all ought to adopt Buddhism before death- that is, we give up desire. Even those of us Christians, we give up ourselves and our souls into the hands of God- we have no power any more. We can only accept whatever decision God makes. It is similar to the notion that after one has submitted one's job/school applications, one should stop worrying about it. For atheists even more so. In life, there may be something you can do about desire, but on the deathbed there is none.

And lastly, correct me if I am wrong (as may well be) ... Is there not something utterly predictable about Buddhism's origin? It seems like the perfect upper class religion. The poor certainly have many desires and go about trying to fulfill them eagerly... at the same time though, acceptance of many things beyond their control is sort of implicit in their lives... I should all of our lives. The futility of me desiring to be Mark
Zuckerberg is not lost on me... it does not present a problem. I simply accept that I can never be him yet still am happy. Furthermore this requires no great strength; it is easy. Otherwise would be insanity. Only someone like Gautama... A spoiled prince who had everything he ever wanted, that he had never even laid eyes on poverty, could discovery of frustrated come as such a shock, an epiphany. and a doctrine of acceptance and giving up desires such a revelation. Only a spoiled brat could have discovered Buddhism... And I do not mean this negatively per se. He stood on the mountaintop that was inaccessible to almost everyone else, he had a unique perspective on life. His background of course was not his journey (after all, ther have been millions of spoiled brats I history and they generally contributed nothing) but it was the natural starting point for his journey.

[anvi]

Both believe in incarnation of soul whether it is in utopian society with God or its rebirth.

Buddhists almost always reject the notion of a soul.  They think rebirth is a causal process...the deeds of one person in one lifetime cause the birth of another person, not in a genetic sense, but in a karmic one.  And the ultimate goal of life for Buddhists is to bring the rebirth process generated by the karma that they have inherited to come to an end.  It's an interesting tradition in that way--it has all the trappings of a religion, scriptures, mediation, monasteries, ect. ect., but they reject the notion of the soul and are at best agnostic, thinking that whether one believes in God or not, human beings must solve their own problems.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Michael Stipe liberal hippie Buddhism is okay, not a big fan of "real" Buddhism.

This is almost the precise opposite of my opinion. Michael Stipe liberal hippie Buddhists are absolutely insufferable to me--and not uniquely so; they're a specific subset of the general world of New Age-y individual-fulfillment hippie spirituality that I find really irritating--whereas among real Buddhists and real Buddhist sects there is both profound good and profound bad. Even within Japanese Buddhism, which I know far better than Buddhism in most other places, developments like Tendai and Pure Land have been really fascinating, ingeniously constructed and situated movements, whereas for example Nichiren Buddhism and certain types of Zen are a lot more disconcerting (though not entirely without merit--Miyazawa Kenji, for one, was a Nichiren Buddhist). I would say that I have on balance a positive view of Mahayana and a slightly negative view of Theravada, and a slightly positive view of the religion as a whole.

[anvi]

I think there is something to what you say, Beet.  Buddhists in south Asia think of their tradition as what is called the "madhyama pratipad," the "middle path."  One of the most concrete early frameworks for this characterization was precisely that Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) indulged for the first several decades of his life in hedonistic (extremely self-indulgent) behavior and for the next few years in rigorously ascetic (extremely self-destructive) practices.  In the end, Siddhartha chose the "middle path," recognizing the needs of the body, but rejecting the excesses of desirous attachment.  It's also a possible fact of his biography that he was a member of the "warrior" caste, headed for rulership of a kingdom, and the fact that he was not just a soldier but a member of the political aristocracy certainly made him an upper-class person before he renounced his standing and became a mendicant.  Now, many of us would probably not concede that what was chosen by Siddhartha was really a "middle" or "moderate" way of life at all.  But by the narratives logic, only someone like Siddhartha, who was familiar with both "extreme" ways to live could have been expected to have a chance to find the middle path.